Question about Shermans!

[Phandaal]

Well, I'm sure this topic has been raised before, but I'm too lazy to go back and search for it.

My great uncle was a tank driver for the U.S. in WWII. He came back from the war with sever PTSD. I can understand why after playing with the shermans. He also was in hand to hand combat with a German (obviously he won). My great uncle btw was a Dutch Immigrant in 1929. The Shermans IMHO weren't horrible, just overmatched (by everything else pretty much). They still can knock out quite a few stugs and the medium german tanks. I don't have a problem using them in CM. I just have to understand how to use them against the Panther effectively.

But, my question is this. Why would a nation that could create the B-29, Atomic Bomb, Iowa class battleships, P-52 Mustangs, and supply the rest of the allies with everything from Spam to Jeeps, send their troops into combat with such a mediocre tank? Doesn't make any sense to me. There must be some political game or something that kept the U.S. from producing a more capable tank sooner. Were they going by the Russian principle of quanity over quality. Hell, even the Russians had produced better tanks. Why did it take us until the end of the war to get a decent tank?

I'm just curious and waiting for my dinner to get done so any answers are appreciated.

[gaffertape]

I've often wondered the same thing. I know that the Sherman was ideal for shipping overseas (size and weight), which was something Germany didn't have to deal with in 44. It was also quite a reliable vehicle mechanically.

But it does seem to me that a lot of allied crews could have been spared, had they been provided with a more heavily armed and armoured fighting machine.

GAFF

[Formerly Babra]

The American armoured force was terribly neglected before the war and was built up almost completely from scratch, with little more than some flawed doctrine to begin with. Budget restraints caused by the depression combined with isolationist policies kept it stagnant despite the efforts of the Chaffees and Pattons of the Army.

By contrast, Soviets and Germans had been cooperating closely in armoured development during the 1930s and were already well ahead of the western powers by the beginning of the war.

That's the shortest of answers, but I'm sure others will flesh it out.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[sbg2112]

Okay, my memory's kinda "groggy" on this one, but since you admit you're too lazy to search for the answer, maybe you'd like to read a book on the subject. I believe it's called "Death Traps" and it's by a guy who was responsible for repairing Shermans to put 'em back into action.

There's a section where he talks about how the U.S. could've had a tank that might've been better (Pershing, if I recall correctly) but didn't for various reasons discussed by the author.

But in the end, it probly comes down to this: given the sheer numbers of Shermans the U.S. was able to field, plus the maintenance infrastructure, the Shermans were "good enough" in the grand scheme of things. Of course, many tankers paid dearly for that, which is why the book has the title it does....

Also, there are some articles at CMHQ that cover the Sherman's development. I'd post the link, but then MadMatt would, well, get mad. Just start with combathq.thegamers.net

[Jager 7]

I agree with the lack of funding and the doctrine neglect. I would consider something else too; The Soviets developed the T-34 as a direct result of being faced with superior German armor. It was a do or die scenario. The Germans countered with still better, albeit more expensive tanks. The U.S. meanwhile had no direct armored warfare experience to go on and didn't get any until late 43 onwards. The idea of cheap, easily transportable tanks produced in huge numbers probably got ahead of quality. When they did find themselves outgunned they had the numbers to overcome the setback. A good example of quantity over quality.

Out here...

------------------

When the situation is obscure....attack!

CGen. Heinz Guderian

[Stephen Smith]

Death Traps is the book to read on the subject. One reason it mentions is that before America got into the war, there was a philosophical debate amongst American generals as to how the tank should be used (and thus how it should be designed). The winning side (Patton actually supported this) thought the tank should be primarily used after a breakthrough is accomplished-against enemy hqs, support units, etc- as a quick, mobile attack force (essentially armored cavalry). Tank destroyers and infantry tanks were expected to be used for the actual breakthrough.

Reality didn't live up to expectations (save for during Patton's breakout/pursuit in August, 1944), and Shermans ended up doing alot more of the grind-it-out tank on tank dirty work than was expected. By the time this was realized, assembly lines, spare parts, and overall infrastructure was geared toward the Sherman, and its heavier replacement (Pershing) was destined to take a year to reach combat units.

Steve

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I always compare the 1944 Shermans with the German tanks of 1942.

The reason is at those dates both countries had been at war about the same length of time. If you then compare the Shermans of '44 to the Panzers of '42 things are a lot more comparitive IMO.

Of course none of this helped the Allied tank crews much.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[killmore]

T-34 was available in small numbers before the start of the war - so it was NOT developed in response to superior German Armor. T-34 was superior to all (?) german tanks in 1941.

I would make another point: germans developed Tiger/Panter in response to T-34.

[Formerly Babra]

Yes, the T34 was a pre-war development.

I think Guderian mentioned this incident: During an inspection of German Armour producing facilities by a Soviet Commission prior to the war, they were shown the PzKw III or IV. The Soviets asked to see the latest German design and were assured that this was it. The Soviets were, to say the least, incredulous. Based on their reaction alone, it was surmised that the Soviets already had something far superior, which indeed they did.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[:USERNAME:]

Death Traps points out that the Pershing could have been in service in substantial numbers before DDAY (about as common as a sherman firefly lets say). The US and Britian were both aware of Tigers AND Panthers from fighting in Italy and somewhat from the russians. The british had fireflys and 17 lbr ATGs and SP. I remember reading that Bradley asked them for some and was turned down (somewhat correctly) because the plan was for British armor to tackle the german panzers after DDay.

Patton screwed up and forced his will on other people. The US TDs couldnt do thier supposed mission and the shermans had to pick up the slack.

BTW the shermans with the radial engines werent that great and the author states that no sherman could stand up to any 75mm shell. Everyone here should read it.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

There are several reasons the Sherman was fielded in 1944-5:

1. The flawed American doctrine that seprarated the role of tank from that of tank destroyer. Tanks, like the Sherman, were not intended to fight enemy armor, but rather to act like a modern heavy cavalry - an exploitation force with shock power that could pour through a gap and into the enemy rear, wreaking havoc. Tank destroyers (both towed and self-propelled) were supposed to deal with enemy tanks.

You can see the difference in the weaponry. The original Sherman was armed with a "short" 75mm gun which extended barrel life at the expense of armor penetrating capability. However, in 1942 when the Sherman was designed, the capability of this gun was sufficient to deal with most armored threats of the day.

Tank destroyers, by 1944, were armed with the 76mm gun which, while still less than ideal, was at least modestly more powerful than the Sherman's 75mm gun against armor. And the M-36 Jackson tank destroyer followed a few months after D-Day with the much-improved 90mm gun.

The problem is that battlefields are rarely neat and tidy places where a commander can send tanks against infantry, and tank destroyers against tanks in separate, cut-and-dry chesslike maneuvers. In reality, tanks had to fight tanks, and tank destroyers often had to fight infantry and antitank guns. So splitting the doctrine was a bad idea - but the US Army didn't become aware of this until well after D-Day when it was too late to change the gears of the armaments industry in any meaningful way.

In fairness to the Sherman, when it's used against infantry it's a surprisingly effective tank. That 75mm HE round is the best of its type in the war, and the MG ammo lasts all day. It's no fun to be a Volksgrenadier squad when a Sherman is parked 200 meters away - just out of your handheld antitank range - just sitting there pummeling you. This is, indeed, the role the Sherman was designed for and it does the job well. The failure is one of omission - the ability to fight heavier tanks.

2. The U.S. Army had a tremendous number of Shermans on hand, and factories cranking them out by the thousands. Shutting down to retool for a new design was seen as counterproductive. There is some credibility to this argument, even if it is not fully convincing. In other words, what's worse - having the Sherman as your main tank, or having even fewer Shermans for several months, but then followed by improved models like the Pershing?

3. Technophobia on the part of U.S. Generals. There was a clear lack of understanding amongst the U.S. leadership about the capabilities of armored vehicles and their weapons. This applies even to armor-friendly commanders like George Patton, as he was one of the principal opponents of the suggestion to put the 90mm Pershing into earlier production, as well as the plan to land in Normandy with 76mm-armed Shermans instead of the 75mm version. His rationale was that the 75mm Shermans were familar to his crews and he didn't want to saddle them with a new type of vehicle (the 76mm version) right before the invasion. Patton was a true believer in "armor as cavalry"; and while this has merit, it overlooks the critical case of tank versus tank combat which Patton, along with many other U.S. officers, thought was the province of the tank destroyer arm, and therefore irrelevant. In Patton's defense, however, he supported the use of additional welded armor on the front hulls of his Shermans once the idea was put forth. This is the "+" version you see in Combat Mission - and it transforms what it otherwise a mediocre tank into a vehicle that the heavy Panzers must take seriously.

The Sherman was a decent tank for 1942, even 1943. You can see this in Combat Mission where the Sherman isn't easily vanquished by anyone but the heavy panzers: Tigers and Panthers. The Sherman is the equal of the Panzer IV - another medium tank. It's only against the "heavies" that the Sherman comes up short. The error was in not improving the Sherman to 1944 standards with a gun that at least had some reasonable ability against heavy armor, like the British 17-pounder, the U.S. 90mm, or even the 76mm gun with an ample supply of HVAP (tungsten) ammunition. (Or simply putting the 90mm Pershing into production much earlier - probably not to replace the Sherman but at least to go into action alongside it). The US Army didn't do any of these things because I believe that its generals simply did not understand the technical issues involved.

Jager7 - actually the Soviets built the T-34 before the German invasion began. There weren't very many of them on the front lines to meet the opening of Barbarossa, and those few that were there were used inefficiently, but nonetheless made their presence felt. The T-34, along with the KV-1, was the first armored machine the Germans encountered that was nearly impervious to German armor-piercing weapons except at very close range (after the British Matilda, which had been encountered in the west in 1940 in relatively small numbers).

Charles

[Dittohead]

Plus I think the shermans came equipped with air, cruise, power windows, power brakes,cd-player, moonroof and had plenty of room for babes.

Whats not to like.

Tony

[Formerly Babra]

Don't forget the Hi-Fi

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[CEO]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Don't forget the Hi-Fi

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Screw the Hi-Fi! Those suckers had Dolby 5.1!

[Phandaal]

LOL, Thanks for the response. I'm gonna go look for that book online now. Should be interesting reading.

Phandaal

[109 Gustav]

formerly barba

One of the main reasons Shermans were used so much was they were mechanically simple, and easy to repair and maintain. This is also why the mk. IV became the primary German tank until the Panther was improved. Also, Sherms were mobile tanks, not fighters. They had a narrow track base, which was better on roads than the low profile of a Panther or Pershing. You could fit 3 Sherms on an LST in the space it would take to put 1 tiger. This was an obvious advantage until the Allies began caputuring ports, although it didn't look so good if a tiger could KO 4 sherms before getting killed. Also, the Allies had excellent tank destroyers, which would ideally be used to take on German armor.

------------------

There is nothing certain about war except that one side won't win.

-Ian Hamilton